IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Are random packet number skips still relevant for opportunistic ACK protection? (#1030)

Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com> Fri, 05 January 2018 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9663D12D0C3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 18:04:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.028
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BReAupFIMI9J for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 18:04:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o4.sgmail.github.com (o4.sgmail.github.com [192.254.112.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B462B1201F8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 18:04:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=kecuS1ldhi3Ti7+2gygQ8g5vPA4=; b=FUVNsuQ999qXnkkF wSYv3AVsxoXhLxvkL9u3YLuMdZ5CAB0NBugjgcLjA2TXnuIKvbjTWkBI3Y+K+ucf tO55YrHxc5g18OHcZV4XPtZ4kp5kjxCwt/0w9bLVPhHHBdayBGVyFhXpHsPpluVF YwvAQDmVIqVg/1wNK3tOdptETM8=
Received: by filter0463p1las1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0463p1las1-25290-5A4EDD25-1 2018-01-05 02:04:21.08264898 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.17]) by ismtpd0010p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id BG9emNIcQnWhwSaCX4n1AQ for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Jan 2018 02:04:21.127 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 02:04:21 +0000
From: Marten Seemann <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab9092a23721ce785223e4db6a5171565cb6a56aed92cf0000000116669f2492a169ce10eae4f0@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1030/355453544@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1030@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1030@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Are random packet number skips still relevant for opportunistic ACK protection? (#1030)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5a4edd24e8684_2ac13faf0e594f28862bc"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: marten-seemann
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak0IUOwZcerJJgfLHzB2TeW5NRt400QQKVz3MA Q5cxt8Ex8MGjxdHIe0a+DqezXTJMOex/5bokyUcPZVb0zJvjYdf6j/S2PPfziiCNOl5ctksDiYIU5t P0MyAsZP9z6nFL+IiCEagX/O6piAmN2R7jyMD5hWNoz//a8Hwi7IR3Nz9NoUsYFQONBJHhsYsrUaVO w=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/BbqbCaexYv_grphO53Sm6UbyVvg>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 02:04:24 -0000

@martinthomson: The client acks packets that is hasn't received. By doing so, the server will increase the congestion window for this connection and flood the network with packets. Packets will get lost, but since the client is just acking everything, none of those losses will be reported.

The only thing the client needs to take care of for this attack is to only ack packets that have actually been sent (and not any yet unsent packet numbers, since that would be connection error). This shouldn't be too hard, since the increase of the congestion window is predictable.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1030#issuecomment-355453544

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status